It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question: What Should Humanity Do About the Threat of Climate Change

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

We know for certain that we have had the climate change before, and drastically. We can look at various spots on earth and know based upon the fossil record that portions that are now dry, once was part of the oceans. We know from core samples, ice core samples that areas now covered with many layers of ice and snow, once teemed with wildlife, were covered by old growth forest, and acted as a habitat for humans.

There is no changing the Earths natural cycles, and since life continues we should be able to determine that there is no drastic threat to humanity. The Earth adapts and so do humans. We may need to move from one area to another, we may need to develope better techniques and technology to thrive as we have over the Centuries, but it's not healthy in my opinion to force change on something already changing and adapting for it's own survival, in fact, it's not even possible for us to do this.




posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Over population is often thrown out as the cause of our woes or future woes but while it is an issue it’s really just a bogeyman thrown out there to deflect from the real issue which is wanton greed. Profit is everything and time and resources are focused on generating as much profit as possible at the cost of the environment and people. It’s attitudes that need to change primarily.


I agree. What does it profit a man if he gains the world but goes extinct?

So humans should change our need for greed, a good start and perhaps one of the best suggestions on what mankind should do to adapt and survive. Greed is wasteful, destructive, and very short sighted (like Phage posted). Laziness and convenience are a factor as well. Give me everything now without regard to the consequences later. These things support my contention that the best solution to the threat of climate change is to change ourselves, not the climate.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

We know for certain that we have had the climate change before, and drastically. We can look at various spots on earth and know based upon the fossil record that portions that are now dry, once was part of the oceans. We know from core samples, ice core samples that areas now covered with many layers of ice and snow, once teemed with wildlife, were covered by old growth forest, and acted as a habitat for humans.

There is no changing the Earths natural cycles, and since life continues we should be able to determine that there is no drastic threat to humanity. The Earth adapts and so do humans. We may need to move from one area to another, we may need to develope better techniques and technology to thrive as we have over the Centuries, but it's not healthy in my opinion to force change on something already changing and adapting for it's own survival, in fact, it's not even possible for us to do this.


You have summed up my position very well. A star for you.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

We are already doing everything we can.

Cars are going electric fast, battery research is at an all time high, solar is now cost competitive.
Research is being done to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Nuclear Fusion research is showing promise.

The whole climate change hysteria is ridiculous. Throwing a hissy fit does nothing to change how fast we pollute less.

Taxing people won't either. Technology is already evolving as fast as it's going to. The government taxing crap and stifling the economy will not speed any thing up.

The whole thing is just a way for leftists to feel morally superior about themselves. They care and nobody else does. No some people are smart enough to know that

A. No climate model has been remotely correct to this point in human history so believing it is now, and that we are in great danger is foolish.

B. The economics of the situation matter. Technology advances every day - when to spend money on fixing a problem is a real thing. Throwing trillions at carbon scraping tech today may be completely stupid, new tech may exist in 2 years that is 100 times more effective for the dollar.

C. It does not matter what the US does - our carbon emissions are already dropping. It's other countries like China and India that are the real problem.

D. The reason climate change cant be modeled correctly is there are billions of variables. Every kind of carbon sink cannot be measured accurately.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo




A. No climate model has been remotely correct to this point in human history so believing it is now, and that we are in great danger is foolish.
Not really an accurate statement.

www.realclimate.org...



C. It does not matter what the US does - our carbon emissions are already dropping.
A bit. But since we are among the highest per capita producers, we could do better.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
I agree with BrianFlanders and LookingAtMars, except that B. Flanders may live to see a sharp turn to the cold side.


At my age with my state of health, that is doubtful. But even so, I suspect if there is an environmental catastrophe, TPTB will be a bit more willing to compromise on their stubborn policy of discouraging voluntary euthanasia at all costs. They may (probably will) actually encourage it. Which they should anyway but don't because they're sadistic morons who see every human being as a potential resource. If they can squeeze a drop of blood out of you, you're worth more to them alive than dead.

If the environment goes to hell in a handbasket, they'll have other priorities if they intend to survive themselves.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 01:41 AM
link   
To answer the question. Absolutely do not let the Federal Government spend any money whatsoever on climate change.

I'm afraid there is nothing but thieves and grifters out there who are salivating at the thought of carbon taxes and other ways of reliving taxpayers and industry of their money so that they can get a .001 decrease in overall world temps in a hundred years. If global warming is happening carbon taxes won't do nothing but make Al Gore and third world dictators rich.

The Paris accords were a farce with Obama trying to spend billions of dollars and otherwise cause major damage to the US economy and industries while enriching the scum of the third world. The best thing that happened to it was the US pullout. Made the rest of the world realize what a joke it really was. And how it didn't touch the real carbon polluters like China and Russia.

Considering Climate Change's track record all I can say is don't spend any money whatsoever on it until there is undeniable evidence that something is happening. And then work on emergency measures to counteract it then.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
A bit. But since we are among the highest per capita producers, we could do better.


Tax incentives for not having children would definitely sweeten the deal for the people most responsible for that. Of course it would not produce a crapload of fresh tax cows (obviously, the goal would be to do the exact opposite) so it's not sustainable for a bloated government like the one we have. And of course the government is not that serious about environment. The government is just as selfish as anyone else. It's top priority is it's own existence, sustenance and survival. The extent of it's concern for us is that we are basically it's source of survival.

The government would have to shrink. Jobs would have to disappear. Taxes would have to (possibly) go up for irresponsible behavior (which would obviously cause an immediate backlash). Enforcement would become a problem with a government that's just big enough to stay afloat.
edit on 30-12-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 03:21 AM
link   


Let's ignore the questions of "if climate change is occurring" and if it is happening, "what is causing it" and consider the situation from the perspective that climate change is actually happening. Let's also suppose that the change is detrimental to life on Earth in general and especially to human beings.

I don't think we can ignore the question of if climate change is occurring and what is causing it. Surely those questions are fundamental to the question of what we are going to do about it? I mean, if the science points towards nature being responsible then there is no point us doing anything about it.
edit on 30-12-2018 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I believe in the European approach. We must tax the French!



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D


Let's ignore the questions of "if climate change is occurring" and if it is happening, "what is causing it" and consider the situation from the perspective that climate change is actually happening. Let's also suppose that the change is detrimental to life on Earth in general and especially to human beings.

I don't think we can ignore the question of if climate change is occurring and what is causing it. Surely those questions are fundamental to the question of what we are going to do about it? I mean, if the science points towards nature being responsible then there is no point us doing anything about it.


I understand your point here, but I merely wanted to discuss the issue as if it were a proven fact that climate change is occurring for the sake of discussion. Also, regardless of the why it is happening, be it man, nature or an angry god, so we can deal with the question "what should humans do about it?"

Note: The question is what should be done, not what can be or might be done. This is more of a moral question, rather than looking for a solution for fixing the problem, one that I contend is beyond our capacity to fix. Basically it comes down to "should we try to fix the climate", something I think is impractical, or should we try instead to "adapt our way of living to adjust to these changes" that are beyond our control.

I'm not saying there may not be ways for humans to adjust the climate to our liking, the question is more like "is it truly practical to try and do so?" If altering the climate is outside our ability or likely not to work in the long run, then it seems that we need to invest our time and resources to change ourselves and adapt or be at the mercy of a hostile climate and ultimately go extinct.

ETA: Going green and reducing our carbon footprint could be part of the answer, but it will likely not stop climate changes from happening. So we need to deal more with adapting to the changes rather than trying to stop them from happening. Humans seem obsessed with changing our environment rather than changing ourselves, an attitude that I believe to be counter productive in this situation given it is a fact.
edit on 30-12-2018 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comments



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Sustainable development, clean energy, energy efficiency.

- In many countries, solar and wind are now the cheapest sources of electricity.[1][2][4][5]
- The cost of solar and wind are still going to fall massively. [1][2][4][5] The falling costs of wind and solar keep exceeding expectations time and time again. Compare [2] with [3] or [5] with [6].
- In countries where solar and wind are not currently the cheapest, it's likely that they will be in the coming decades. [1][4]
- It is possible to limit global warming to 1.5°C whilst simultaneously providing access to electricity and clean cooking fuels to 100% of the human population by 2030 while saving millions from air-pollution related deaths. [2]
- The cost of not doing anything far exceeds the cost of doing something. [6]
- The amount of investment required to keep up our consumption of fossil fuels is extremely large as existing sources are depleted. Sustainable development requires about a 15% increase in energy investment. [2]

Sources:

[1] AEMO & CSIRO GENCOST 2018,
[2] IEA World Energy Outlook 2018 (Sustainable Development Scenario),
[3] IEA World Energy Outlook 2008,
[4] BNEF NEO 2018,
[5] EIA LCOE 2018,
[6] EIA LCOE 2015,
[7] IPCC Global Warming of 1.5 ºC.

The reasons for not doing something about it usually boils down to ideological reasons, for example, being ideologically against having an effective government, feels over science, or simple selfishness.
edit on 30/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

BS.that is all.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
1. Develop the tech to redirect a large asteroid to impact the Earths' Indian ocean. That impact will cause a tidal wave, wiping out many of the most populated shorelines. Killing millions of humans in the process.

2. Explode a "bunker buster" bomb in the heart of the Cumbre Vieja volcano on the island of La Palma in the Canary Islands
That would result in its collapse and create a massive landslide into the Atlantic. That would cause a mega-tsunami wiping out the coastal population centers of Europe and North America. Killing millions of humans in the process, and setting back the "financial clock" resulting in more deaths on the internal land masses from starvation and infighting.

3. Use foreign policy to destabilize the Korean peninsula to result in a nuclear exchange between Korea and Japan (which the U.S. and China will conduct by proxy). More deaths and destruction of humans.


What is the common thread of all these "solutions"? Reducing the problem where it started, human overpopulation and industrialization.

Do I advocate for these solutions, HECK NO!!! They are all insane.

However, to trying to delude ourselves that paying "carbon taxes" to the 1% and funding failed "green initiatives" at the cost of the taxpayers is also insane.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Question: What Should Humanity Do About the Threat of Climate Change
Answer: Stop breeding or breed less.

Long answer: Our planet is not big enough to accommodate 8 billion people and it's getting out of control. Lets take climate change out of the question and ask what are we meant to do once all the resources have dried up?
Blame each other because that's part of being human.

Nuclear winter should cool the planet. Also Yellowstone volcano is many years over-due and the cooling from that explosion should keep the Earth cool for awhile except we'd still have the population problem.

It's the extensive farming that will kill the planet mostly. nature Isn't growing back fast enough.



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

It's amusing to see people say we should adapt to climate change rather than prevent climate change.

This is proposing to move entire cities and change civilizations instead of building new power plants and using natural resources more wisely.

Maybe we could also remove all border security, and deport illegal immigrants once they're already here.

Maybe we could also remove all police, and set up the police once criminals have taken over.

Maybe we should only set up a fire department once the building is on fire. "It will be easier to adapt" they said.

So which part is "BS"?
edit on 30/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: yuppa

It's amusing to see people say we should adapt to climate change rather than prevent climate change.

This is proposing to move entire cities and change civilizations instead of building new power plants and using natural resources more wisely.

Maybe we could also remove all border security, and deport illegal immigrants once they're already here.

Maybe we could also remove all police, and set up the police once criminals have taken over.

Maybe we should only set up a fire department once the building is on fire. "It will be easier to adapt" they said.

So which part is "BS"?


Since you asked, the idea that humans have the ability to control a changing climate is the part that is "BS" IMO.

So building new power plants (I'm assuming green ones) and using natural resources more wisely will reverse climate change? And these are things that won't change civilization?

The border is pretty much how you describe it already, they don't deport them until after they cross the porous border.

Your analogies aren't comparing to adaptation very well - I'm not suggesting that we address the problem after the fact. The analogy of creating a fire department after a building is on fire should be more like building fireproof structures so a fire department is unnecessary.


edit on 31-12-2018 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comments



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

And lets how about I just turn the tempurature of the sun down a few degrees and make the earth cooler.

Play my song now...



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1776IIIV
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

And lets how about I just turn the tempurature of the sun down a few degrees and make the earth cooler.

Play my song now...


Remember to Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun before you do that.



posted on Dec, 31 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck




First poke the tRUMP “orange idiot-in-chief”…

Then………………


Take a deep breath and get prepared for the consequences of our ignorance. We’ve been seriously/constantly warned since 80’s, we can’t do anything now!!


It is already too late……….!




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join